Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:342-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11152 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mathura Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner's claim for compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna has been declined by the District Level Committee headed by the District Magistrate on 27.07.2024 on the ground that there is no agricultural land recorded in the name of the deceased and as she was not a farmer, therefore, not eligible for the compensation, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 Para - 2 thereof to contend that while Para- 2(1) relates to the eligibility of the tenure holder Para -2(2) relates to the eligibility of other family members of the tenure holder or co-sharers whose main source of livelihood was the agriculture income generated from the land of the tenure holder. 3. The submission is that the petitioner is the tenure holder. It is the daughter of the petitioner who has died. She is used to work with the petitioner in the agricultural land of the petitioner which was the main source of her livelihood, therefore, she is covered by Para- 2(2) of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020. Similar issue has been considered by us in Writ- C No. 11024 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024 which reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that his wife died in a road accident as such the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, however, the claim has been declined by the impugned order at Serial No.10 on the ground that no land was recorded in the name of the deceased nor was she the main bread earner of the family. 3. Contention is that the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 does not use the word "main bread-earner". The means of sustenance of the petitioner is a small agricultural holding and the wife used to help out the petitioner in the agricultural activities, therefore, she was also an earning member of the family and the main source of livelihood is/was the proceeds from the agricultural holding and, therefore, the petitioner is squarely covered under Para-2(2) of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, which includes such members of the khatedar or co-sharer, who were earning for the family and the main source of their livelihood was the agricultural land held by the tenure holder i.e. the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is clearly covered by the said clause. We have perused the impugned order and we find that petitioner has a case for re-consideration. The claim has not been considered appropriately in the light of the Government Order dated 28.01.2020. The recital in the impugned order that the deceased was not the "main bread-earner" is contrary to the provisions of Para-2(2) of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 as the word "main bread-earner" is not mentioned therein. We, therefore, quash the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed by opposite party no.2 as far as the entries corresponding to Serial No.10 pertaining to the petitioner are concerned and direct the District Level Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow to re-consider the matter in the light of what has been stated herein-above and the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 and take a fresh decision within two months. 4. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms." 4. We are of the opinion that matter requires reconsideration in the light of the Para -2(2) of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 and the judgment referred hereinabove. The order by which the claim has been rejected is a cryptic order which does not disclose due proper application of mind to the eligibility of the petitioner based on the death of his daughter in the light of the provisions of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020. We accordingly quash the decision impugned which is dated 24.07.2024 so far as it relates to Sushree Shivani daughter of the petitioner- Mathura Prasad i.e. at Serial No. 131 of the said order and direct the District Level Committed headed by District Magistrate to reconsider the matter in the light the aforesaid and take a fresh decision within a period of two months. 5. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. . (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 3.1.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench